Found a loose 28-70mm FE

[David Kilpatrick]

Knocked down to £349 removed from an A7 kit, London Camera Exchange Bristol. At that price decided it's worth getting to use with the A7R even though I suspect Sony did not bundle with the A7R because they are basically rubbish, or the OSS doesn't play nicely.

Not having much luck with the A7R despite having some 'interesting' lenses and the LA-EA3 adaptor; it's really only worth bothering with the camera if the results are going to be 100%, and at this time of year, almost any other type of camera works better.

LCE Bristol also currently has an A900 body, looking a bit well used, for £799.

David

[classiccameras]

David, I see Ephotozine have given the A7 overall camera of the year 2013.

[David Kilpatrick]

Ephotozine is quite commercial in approach. I think it's jumping the gun a bit as the camera has not really been in use long enough and its lenses have mostly not yet been released. Pete Bargh does however have a good collection of old Minolta AF stuff - including the last 600mm f/4 APO G which Sony had in stock when they shut down. So he's probably quite keen, unless he sold that one.

David

[pakodominguez]

Knocked down to £349 removed from an A7 kit, London Camera Exchange Bristol. At that price decided it's worth getting to use with the A7R even though I suspect Sony did not bundle with the A7R because they are basically rubbish, or the OSS doesn't play nicely.

Hey! Sony labeled it as "G", it can not be that bad...
I played with that lens at PPE show here in NYC last October, the design seams totally new; light lens that doesn't extend much from 28 to 70mm

Not having much luck with the A7R despite having some 'interesting' lenses and the LA-EA3 adaptor; it's really only worth bothering with the camera if the results are going to be 100%, and at this time of year, almost any other type of camera works better.

I haven't had time to play with the camera either (A7R), just a couple of gigs using the LA-EA2 and 16-105, that focus faster and more accurate than with the NEX7, even in low light -actually, I was surprised of how well this combo focus in low light...
Otherwise a lot of work at the lab, and not enough light outside for trying the camera with my Minolta MC/MD lenses. I only played with the Minolta 35 f2.8 (49 filter size) and I'm not sure it will make it; it is a little soft unless I use it at f5.6 or f8 (but I really need to work more with this old lenses before deciding on buying modern lenses)
I have a couple of trips early January and then I'll sell the A7R and I'll wait until the spring before deciding on buying it again or buying an A7.

[David Kilpatrick]

Well, it arrived two days early and I am delighted to see that this is a new item split from a kit and not returned, as it has full VAT - actual price to me £297, and it comes with a 12 month warranty as well. Apart from sitting here while the worst wettest coldest kind of Scottish rain pelts down outside (mixed with hailstones and blown horizontally, under an f/0.95 sky), I'm delighted. Just no way to test the lens , unless I'm supposed to check its weather sealing...

David

[Greg Beetham]

It doesn’t look all that bad actually for a FF kit, it could have been worse, it seems to like f8 the best. (it's probably not clinically perfect enough for David's requirements) http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1255761
Greg

[David Kilpatrick]

My requirements include travel, and the forthcoming 24-70mm at £1070 or whatever price takes 67mm filters and is quite big. Even this lens is pretty big. It makes the Olympus 12-50mm look small!

David

[Eiffel]

The French magazine, Le Monde de la Photo has a test of this lens in French (http://www.lemondedelaphoto.com/TEST-SO ... ,8943.html), using the DXO test suite. For what it's worth, JMS, the tester, is a well respected author and knows his stuff.

Basically results are excellent on an A7 at all apertures, except sharpness at 28mm below f:5.6 which is week in the extreme corners.

On an A7R, the lens is good but not excellent (using A1 sized prints as a reference).

Still very good value for the price in my view.

[David Kilpatrick]

Oh well, my example turns out to be totally useless even stopped down f/8 at 28mm.

Time to ship it back...

David

[Greg Beetham]

I guess getting an A7 isn’t really the answer either, no gain over the A99 in real terms, the A7+adaptor is smaller and lighter, yes, but no IBIS (and has a much smaller battery with no supplied charger).
Any which way you look at it FF = avoirdupois so far; unless the new expensive FE 24-70 zoom works good then you could ditch the adaptor and realize a more compact FF setup, sort of, and if it works good that is, and it should if it’s going to cost that much.
Its way out of my budget range but I guess there are lots of people out there who won’t be fazed.
My problem with FE lenses is the extension tube built into the lenses making them larger than they otherwise could have been…why make a compact short register FF mount and not capitalize on that?
Greg

btw Merry X-mas everyone.

[bfitzgerald]

Bit disappointing if it's hopeless at 28mm f8.
Maybe a dud copy, but I'm starting to think that "air gap" which mirrorless fans hate so much is actually quite useful. I get very good results on a 28-85mm at 28mm f8 on a FF 35mm body.

Ken Rockwell slapped some shots up comparing it to a Leica M with a 21mm lens
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/compari ... /index.htm

Looks like there are no free rides for M mount WA users, clearly the Sony isn't very well optimised with micro lenses.
Bit surprised to see those light reflections in one shoot too

Reports of shutter vibration causing problems too on the A7R:
http://www.diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20131 ... ation.html

David I saw your shots on DPR postings and the lens looks like a complete turkey!
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52762294

Wondering how that got through QC at all. I've a 28-100mm D that would put that to shame and then some more!

[Vidgamer]

I guess getting an A7 isn’t really the answer either, no gain over the A99 in real terms, the A7+adaptor is smaller and lighter, yes, but no IBIS (and has a much smaller battery with no supplied charger).

If the sensors are similar, then there's not a huge difference unless you are interested in reducing the bulk. If size doesn't matter and you have an A99, why get an A7?

Any which way you look at it FF = avoirdupois so far; unless the new expensive FE 24-70 zoom works good then you could ditch the adaptor and realize a more compact FF setup, sort of, and if it works good that is, and it should if it’s going to cost that much.
Its way out of my budget range but I guess there are lots of people out there who won’t be fazed.
My problem with FE lenses is the extension tube built into the lenses making them larger than they otherwise could have been…why make a compact short register FF mount and not capitalize on that?
Greg

btw Merry X-mas everyone.

Extention tube? Is it that bad? From a photo I saw of the 35mm lens, it didn't look any larger than the Sigma 30, and that's pretty compact, I thought. If you want to see an extention tube, try using an SLR lens -- you'll need a "tube" adapter!

[David Kilpatrick]

Return to the shop (it was a new lens, but clearly just a wrong 'un). However, I have done lots of tests and research and I am not sure now that I want to try another. The OSS and focus are both electronically positioned with a free-floating central group in the lens - everything in that lens depends on magnets to hold it in the right place when you shoot, it can not even focus at all with power off, the group parks iself in a position where there is total blur.

lenses_detail_img_3_modal.jpg (58.92 KiB) Viewed 6450 times

Also, as this MTF from Sony shows, the tangential resolution at 28mm/30 cycles makes a nose dive at f/8 so the lens is MUCH worse at f/8 than at f/3.5 and 28mm. Very few lenses show this behaviour - stopping down makes things worse. It is a truly odd design, no doubt very clever, but also very compromised.

David

[Greg Beetham]

Checking a dof calculator http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutori ... ulator.htm for David’s shot at dpr it says at those settings FF 28mm @ f8 focused on a subject at 20ft the first point of acceptable sharpness is at 6.71ft which should easily include the dof range of the subject, the lens is a dud.
Greg

[bfitzgerald]

Checking a dof calculator http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutori ... ulator.htm for David’s shot at dpr it says at those settings FF 28mm @ f8 focused on a subject at 20ft the first point of acceptable sharpness is at 6.71ft which should easily include the dof range of the subject, the lens is a dud.
Greg

I know it's just a kit lens, but even so I would expect it to deliver fairly decent images at 28mm stopped down (nobody expects a good performance at faster speeds on full frame WA) I'll go one further, I've never actually seen a lens that bad at 28mm on full frame, even the 35mm kit lenses were able to deliver relatively ok images with decent sharpness (contrast fairly low but pretty sharp)